Battle for China's Past : Mao and the Cultural Revolution

THE BATTLE FOR CHINA’ S PAST
author Chang does not make any difference at all. Mao’s father-in-law’s
name Yang Changji (Pinyin) or Yang Ch’ang-chi (Wade-Giles) is spelt as
‘Yang Chang-chi’ (part Pinyin and part Wade-Giles), and Liu Shaoqi
(Pinyin) or Liu Shao-ch’i (Wade Giles) is spelt as ‘Liu Shao-chi’. The last
names of Mr Yang and Mr Liu do not sound the same, but Chang spells
them as if they do.
Further evidence of flaws and misleading claims
It is true that The Unknown Story is not without its critics. James Heartfield
(2005) is one of the very few who makes a well-researched effort
to expose the distortions contained in it. Kakutani also points out the
lack of reference in the book to Mao’s ‘mature writings that might shed
light on his politics or values’, and the absence of historical context,
calling the work ‘tendentious and one-dimensional’. Even Steve Tsang
of Oxford University, a historian who has no love for Mao and the CCP,
has to admit that ‘the authors had been ‘appallingly dishonest’ in the
use of sources they claimed to have accessed. Of course Tsang readily
agrees that ‘Mao was a monster,’ but regrets that ‘their distortion of
history to make their case will in the end make it more difficult to
reveal how horrible Mao and the Chinese Communist Party system
were, and how much damage they really did to the Chinese people’
(quoted in Heartfield 2005).
To approach the subject of Mao, or anybody really, it is perfectly
legitimate to have an attitude. ‘You don’t feel cold analysis in this book,
you feel hatred, which helps make it a wonderful read. But history
should not work this way’, Francesco Sisci of La Stampa in Italy states
with regret (McDonald 2005). Teiwes also regrets:
When someone [Mao] is responsible, and I believe he was, for
upwards of 30 million deaths, it’s hard to defend him. … But on
the other hand to paint him as a totally monstrous personality
who just goes out to kill people and protect his power at all cost
is not only over the top but a bit crazy in terms of what actually
went on.
In order to do that, ‘She [Chang] just had her views so set, and was
unwilling to entertain other opinions or inconvenient evidence’
(McDonald 2005).
Jung Chang claims to have interviewed the last surviving eyewitness
at Luding Bridge who was said to have confirmed that there was no
battle at the bridge during the Long March. When McDonald went to
Luding he did not find a trace of Jung Chang’s witness. Instead, he
found another eyewitness confirming that a battle indeed took place
[ 74 ]